HAPPYDAN wrote: Probably has an even worse useable load, but the most fun I've had flying was in a1936 (restored) Piper Cub.

I guess you are lucky. Not many people get to go for a ride in a 1936 Piper Cub. The puny 37-40 HP of the J2 would only carry 2 people aloft in the best of conditions.

My father soloed in a J3 in 1942, so it was kind of a discovery mission. The plane is owned by Safety in Motion, Puyallup WA (KPLU). Hand propped, 65 hp Continental, hand held radio. It took them 2 weeks to find a qualified CFI, but is was worth every minute and every penny. Low and slow.download/file.php?mode=view&id=558

I looked them up on the web. there is a picture on their Facebook page from 2013 that shows them installing a 85HP stroker engine in a 1939 J3 Cub. The registration number was N23288.

Ah, I remember that one well. When I went to sign up for lessons and the chief instructor showed me at the time, I was too, ah fat. It worked out ok. Pushed me to get my own plane with a better useful load.

I did my primary training in the Skycatcher, solo, checkride and all. It is an ok airplane. Useful load issues aside, Cessna has pretty much branded the C-162 a red headed stepchild. I'd be concerned about availability of parts in the future.

I'd look at the Flight Designs lineup before considering a Skycatcher. Some of the 10 year old CTLS models can be had in the 55-60K range.

Don't get me wrong, its a dandy flying airplane but it just comes with a lot of ifs, ands, and buts.

100LL wrote:I did my primary training in the Skycatcher, solo, checkride and all. It is an ok airplane. Useful load issues aside, Cessna has pretty much branded the C-162 a red headed stepchild. I'd be concerned about availability of parts in the future.

I'd look at the Flight Designs lineup before considering a Skycatcher. Some of the 10 year old CTLS models can be had in the 55-60K range.

Don't get me wrong, its a dandy flying airplane but it just comes with a lot of ifs, ands, and buts.

The Flight Design earlier model the CTSW's sells in the price range you mentioned. The CTLS was introduced in 2008, and most of them go a little higher in price.

3Dreaming wrote:The Flight Design earlier model the CTSW's sells in the price range you mentioned. The CTLS was introduced in 2008, and most of them go a little higher in price.

This is true, however even though the CTLS is the newer "improved" version, I personally think the CTSW is the better airplane. Most of the improvements to the CTLS are with regard to control harmony and yaw stability (due to a two foot longer tail boom). All CTs are rudder airplanes, you have to use your feet. So you get a bit more yaw stability in turbulence, but no real change in how you fly the airplane. The CTLS does have better landing gear. The modest improvements to the airplane come at a price, though.

All CTs in the USA have a 1320lb gross, but the CTSW is much lighter. Most CTSWs have a useful load in the 570-590lb range, a few with very little equipment are up around 600lb. Conversely, the useful load on the CTLS airplanes is usually around 520-540lb. It's even worse for the newest CTLSi with the heavier fuel-injected engine, their useful is more often in the 480-490lb range, on par with a Skycatcher.

520lb useful is okay, you can do some dual traveling at those weights. Two 200lb people and and 20 gallons of fuel and you are right at gross. With the 570lb of the CTSW, you still have room for 50lb of bags, tiedowns, and all the other junk that accumulates in an airplane. If you want to take a weekend trip with those two 200lb people, you can in a CTSW, but in a CTLS it's harder. You have to either load fuel very low and make short legs, or take no baggage, ship your bags ahead or have somebody take them for you, fly over gross (illegal and not recommended), etc. It gets annoying to travel that way. Of course, if you are not "standard American size" and weigh 140lb and have a 100lb wife as a traveling partner, these are non-issues. Likewise if your flying is solo.

Don't get me wrong, the CTLS is a great airplane, I just don't think the price premium on the used market (usually tens of thousands of dollars) is justified by the improvements. And all of this is just my opinion, worth exactly what you paid for it.

Andy, having owned and flown both I personally prefer the CTLS. I have owned 2 different CTSW's and my current CTLS, and I have flown several more with varying equipment. I have flown CTSW's after flying the CTLS. The changes to the CTLS were more than just improvement of the control system. I personal think the advantages of the CTLS were worth the loss of 40-50 pounds useful load. I agree that the airplane is heavier than the CTSW, and has gotten more portly as time has passed. I like the earlier lighter CTLS, but it also needs to be built after the middle of 2008 to have the lighter controls.

3Dreaming wrote:Andy, having owned and flown both I personally prefer the CTLS. I have owned 2 different CTSW's and my current CTLS, and I have flown several more with varying equipment. I have flown CTSW's after flying the CTLS. The changes to the CTLS were more than just improvement of the control system. I personal think the advantages of the CTLS were worth the loss of 40-50 pounds useful load. I agree that the airplane is heavier than the CTSW, and has gotten more portly as time has passed. I like the earlier lighter CTLS, but it also needs to be built after the middle of 2008 to have the lighter controls.

As I said, it's all a matter of opinion and beauty is in the eye of the beholder!

I do think the interior materials are nicer on the CTLS, but that again adds to the weight issue. There are plenty of reasons to love all the CTs, and I do. I just wish that we could use a 1500lb+ gross weight so all these differences in load would essentially vanish.

Personally, with the exception of the Continental 0-200 engine, I would be concerned about parts availability going forward. The 162's real world sales numbers (i.e. not including the unsold planes Cessna registered) were fairly low, and the way Cessna scrapped those remaining planes recently http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Cessna-Scraps-Unsold-Skycatchers-228208-1.html could mean two things: 1) they have a large inventory of parts to support the 162 in the future or 2) they are distancing themselves as far as possible from that model.

C162 is a great option. They are fine flyers with lots of space and are supported by Cessna. Sure they are discontinued but you get a Continental engine and a Cessna airframe with Garmin avionics. Flight Design went bankrupt and some customers lost big. Jabiru engines are not that reliable.

ryoder wrote:C162 is a great option. They are fine flyers with lots of space and are supported by Cessna. Sure they are discontinued but you get a Continental engine and a Cessna airframe with Garmin avionics. Flight Design went bankrupt and some customers lost big. Jabiru engines are not that reliable.

Fo $50,000 you can do a lot better than the 162. The E-LSA are better equipped and more affordable. If you have good mechanical skills and willing to learn then LSRM and LSRI certs will save you a tone of money over the life of you aircraft present and future. I have seen a Lighting LS1 for $50,000 on Trade a Plane and it is beautiful. Better airframe, interior, and engine than any Cessna 162. Or look at Rotax powered aircraft, lighter than the continentals and dependable with a huge owner base and support. I bought my Allegro 2000 E-LSA with very good avionics and low hours and the lower cost of ownership made this a bargain.Good luck on you search and let us know what you get.Randy Bearden

Cessna C162 is my first choice. RV-12 is my second choice. I would prefer SLSA over ELSA any day. If I wanted to later convert to ELSA, I would. If I had money to burn and was in the market for a new airplane, the high wing Tecnam is a beautiful airplane.